1. "I did find offensive the apparent suggestion that historians of economics might be qualified to diagnose mental disease".

Deductively, the diagnosis was provided by an historian; the evidence suggests that it was not.

2. "von Mises brief praise of fascism".

Deductively, this is a lapse "in moral judgment [which does] not immediately translate into general theoretical error."

Hayek disliked Jews and non-whites, especially "the negro"; the Jewish-born Mises appears to have been prone to anti-Semitism (especially when confronted by dissent). Using chronology, rather than Miesean deductive logic, could Alan explain:

1919: Romanov-ennobled fascists - or white terrorists, as they were then known - liquidated 100,000 Jews. 

1925: "At the beginning of the war, or even during the war, if 12,000 or 15,000 of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to submit to poison gas ... then the millions of sacrifices made at the front would not have been in vain.” 

1927: "It cannot be denied" that "fascists" - including "Ludendorff and Hitler" - will protect "civilisation" and "property" (von Mises _Liberalism_ 1985 [1927]). 



----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan G Isaac" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, 20 May, 2014 8:53:44 PM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] The Hayek question

On 5/20/2014 7:07 AM, Robert Leeson quoted:
> Austrians have framed Friedman ("fascist"), Pigou
> ("communist spy"), Phillips ("underground communist") and
> Keynes (a “Godhating, principle-hating, State-loving
> homosexual pervert”; Keynesians have “pushed the world
> into evil, and therefore toward God’s righteous
> judgment”).


Are you proposing Gary North as a representative "Austrian"?
I don't think his association with the Ludwig von Mises
Institute, however regrettable it might be, earns him that
honor.

I largely agree with Eloy: the posted project outline struck
my ears as a near-comical call for the promotion of ad
hominem and guilt by association, not like a proposal for
historical investigation.  Of course that may not be the
project's intent; it may just reflect a desire to present it in
a provocative and combative way.

I would like to stress that I am not suggesting that a project
that asks why cranks are attracted to certain kinds of ideas
need be without merit, as long as there is no presumption that
the attraction of cranks to an idea implies that it is
a crank idea.  I also think that it can be reasonable to
document the moral failings of a writer, especially one who
seems to attract hagiography.  So I would not suggest that
Hayek's involvement with Pinochet or von Mises brief praise
of fascism are not fair topics for discussion, as long as
the discussion acknowledges that lapses in moral judgment do
not immediately translate into general theoretical error.

Although I was mostly amused, I did find offensive the
apparent suggestion that historians of economics might be
qualified to diagnose mental disease, and the apparent
implication that such diagnoses could shed light on the
quality of theory produced by a mind.  It may be worth
recalling that a very well-deserved "Nobel Prize in
Economics" was awarded to a man whose struggles with serious
mental illness are a matter of record.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac